The Case for Prequalifying Contractors and Suppliers

June 14, 2019

Prequalification is most commonly used for contractors, but there is an increasing demand to prequalify supply vendors as well. This article will focus primarily on the need to prequalify contractors.

Accidents happen every day and current statistics say that human error is the cause of over 85% of those accidents. For ever 300 near-miss incidents, there are an average of 29 minor injuries and one serious injury or fatality.

Many companies have implemented a strong internal safety program and some have even created a culture of safety. Their losses are lower than the average stated above which, of course, brings the averages down — a good thing.

The problem comes with the introduction of outside contractors. Since they are not part of your organization, the question becomes what additional risk, if any, do they introduce into your company’s work environment?

  • Smart risk and safety managers should be wondering about the consequences of:
  • Signficiant damage to the facility
  • Serious injuries, or worse, fatalities
  • The contractor at fault having no insurance coverage
  • Having to pay the price personally (loss of job or reputation)
  • Companies that aren’t prequalifying their contractors generally fall into one of two camps. The first group feels that safety is the responsibility of the contractor. This is most often the case when new construction is taking place. That approach doesn’t meet OSHA requirements.

One company we are aware of delegated all the responsibility for safety on the construction site to their general contractor. Unfortunately, there was a fatality and, when OSHA investigated, they fined not only the general contractor but also the owners who had hired him. They stated that is was the company’s project on company property and, as such, the company had a duty to ensure that everyone on the project followed proper safety protocols.

The second group feels that they “know” their contractors because they have worked with them before and there is no need to look any further. One ethanol producer we know felt the same way. Unfortunately, a contractor who worked for them sent a new employee to their facility with no safety training. He fell through a grate onto the conveyer that led to the hammer mill. Fortunately for him, he was overweight and got jammed in the system. During the rescue, the ethanol company’s employees pulled on both his arms, dislocating both shoulders and doing permanent damage. As the ambulance drove away, they called the contractor to suggest he get in touch with his insurance agent. That was when they discovered he had let his insurance lapse. As you might guess, the employee’s attorney sued everyone and it took three and a half years in court to resolve the case. The ethanol company’s insurance covered all but their deductible. However, the lost time, damage to their reputation, and increased insurance costs were significant.

Losses caused by outside contractors or suppliers are bound to happen. The real question is how can you minimize the impact to your organization?

Companies often set up standards that any contractor who is going to work at their facilities must meet. Those standards almost always include a given level of insurance coverage and some documentation of safety programs, policies and, most importantly, safety history. The problem is that the task of gathering that information is often disseminated among different departments and even different facilities. To compound the problem, the various tasks are typically a part-time job function of the individuals charged with gathering the information. Unfortunately, this is where the process breaks down. As a part-time task, gathering the appropriate information receives all the efficiency and accuracy of a part-time effort. Even worse, if the tasks are distributed among various departments and facilities, the usual result is disconnected siols of data with no central location for people to access the needed information.

The common belief is that the system is in place and that any contractor performing work has been vetted and meets all the standards. The reality is usually quite different. Audits of these systems typically find that a large percentage (sometimes as high as 70%) are out of compliance with one or more of the standards. Frequently, critical documents like certificates of insurance have expired or the minimum coverage and required endorsements aren’t in place.

If you want an internal system, it should be housed in one location and have a minimum of two employees trained to gather, update, and determine a status for each contractor. Ideally, the system will be online and available to employees when they need it.

Using a third-party company to prequalify contractors can solve many of the challenges associated with an internal system. Some examples are:

  • All contractors are vetted to the same standards
  • Automated notifications and changes of status based upon expiration dates
  • Electronic notifications sent to critical parties
  • All the data is in an online, easy-to-access database that is accessible whenever the information is needed
  • Your staff can focus on their core functions, making them more productive
  • There is no duplication of effort
  • The contractor has a single point of contact
  • Phone and online support for both the client and the contractor
  • System provides search capabilities, like who is prequalified and does the desired type of work
  • Reporting capabilities are built in
  • Often other services like background checks, score-carding, and online training are offered
  • Online management and access of critical documents like:
    • Certificates of Insurance
    • NCCI letters
    • OSHA 300 logs
    • General Conditions Agreements
    • Other critical documents
  • The cost is borne by the contractors and suppliers
  • Live customer support for both the client and the contractor

A third-party solution is often preferable sinc eprequalifying is typically not a core competency of most companies. Employees usually want relief from the nightmare of trying to obtain, update, and review all the information required.

Ready to simplify your safety program? Contact us today to learn more about smarter contractor/supplier management and how to close risk management gaps.

You might also like

Multi-Site Contractor Verification for Safety Programs
March 10, 2026
Learn how consistent contractor verification across locations strengthens multi-site safety programs and improves contractor compliance oversight.
By Erica Montefusco March 4, 2026
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our friend Erica Montefusco , Senior VP, Risk & Compliance at PROtect, wrote the following post on LinkedIn. We liked it so much we asked if we could republish it as a guest blog. This is the first of four com-panion pieces on resilience and leadership, which will appear in future guest blogs. _______________ There is a misconception that industrial risk leadership is rigid. Regulations. Standards. Checklists. Audits. Metrics. On the surface, it can look procedural. But the longer I’ve worked in risk, safety, and compliance, the more I’ve realized something unexpected: This career is not about rigidity. It’s about exploration. Curiosity Is a Risk Control Before I worked in industrial environments, I was fascinated by anthropology, archaeology, and scientific dis-covery. Why civilizations rise. Why they collapse. How systems evolve. How small environmental or cultural shifts compound over time. That lens never left me. In industrial risk, the same principles apply. Organizations don’t experience catastrophic failure without signals. Drift occurs gradually. Norms shift quietly. Pressure normalizes shortcuts. If you’re not curious, you miss it. Curiosity is not abstract in this profession. It’s protective. Asking: Why is this procedure written this way? Why are near-miss reports declining? Why does this site feel different than others? Why did supervision behavior change under schedule pressure? Risk leadership requires scientific thinking - observation, hypothesis, pattern recognition. It is less about enforcement. More about investigation. Cultural Understanding Shapes Safety Culture Traveling the world, experiencing different countries, belief systems, and social norms, it reshaped how I view organizational culture. Every culture, whether national or corporate, has invisible rules. What is spoken openly. What is avoided. Who challenges authority. Who doesn’t. Safety culture operates the same way. You cannot implement risk controls without understanding cultural dynamics. If speaking up is culturally discouraged, Stop Work Authority will fail. If production pressure is celebrated as heroism, incidents will rise. If environmental stewardship is treated as compliance instead of responsibility, corners will eventually be cut. Leadership requires cultural literacy. And cultural literacy begins with humility. Exploration Builds Resilience Exploration, whether physical or intellectual, builds resilience. When you’ve navigated unfamiliar terrain, when you’ve faced environments outside your comfort zone, when you’ve experienced adversity and uncertainty… you learn something essential: Calm is a choice. In industrial risk leadership, calm is not optional. Emergencies happen. Incidents occur. Regulators ask hard questions. Executives look to you for clarity. Your tone becomes the baseline for everyone else. Resilience is not bravado. It’s steadiness under pressure. That steadiness is built long before crisis arrives. It is built through challenge. Scientific Curiosity and Regulatory Discipline Risk work is often viewed as regulatory. But at its core, it is scientific. Observe. Measure. Analyze. Adjust. Environmental compliance demands precision. Safety programs demand behavioral understanding. Risk mitigation demands systems thinking. The most effective leaders in this space are not just rule-followers. They are investigators. They want to understand: What is really happening? What patterns are emerging? What assumptions are we making? Where is drift occurring? Exploration and science share a common foundation: Intellectual honesty. If something isn’t working, you change it. If evidence contradicts belief, you adapt. That mindset has shaped how I lead. The Connection Between Stewardship and Leadership The longer I work in this field, the more I see risk leadership as stewardship. We are entrusted with: People’s safety. Community trust. Environmental integrity. Corporate reputation. Financial stability. That is not a small responsibility. Travel has taught me how interconnected systems are. Environmental work reinforces that daily. Air doesn’t stop at property lines. Water doesn’t respect ownership boundaries. Reputation doesn’t isolate itself to a single event. Leadership requires long-term thinking. Exploration teaches you to look beyond the immediate horizon. Why This Matters Now We are entering a period of increased transparency. AI-driven analytics. Real-time environmental monitoring. Data visibility at unprecedented levels. The future risk leader must be more than compliant. They must be: Curious. Culturally aware. Scientifically grounded. Emotionally steady. Ethically anchored. Industrial leadership and exploration are not opposites. They are parallel disciplines. Both require courage. Both require humility. Both require adaptability. Both require respect for forces larger than yourself. And both demand resilience. Closing Reflection If there is one thing my professional career and personal philosophy share, it is this: Never accept the surface. Look deeper. Ask harder questions. Challenge assumptions. Stay steady under pressure. Protect what matters. Risk leadership, like exploration, is not about control. It is about understanding. And understanding is what ultimately keeps people safe.
Centralized Contractor Data
March 4, 2026
Learn how centralized contractor data, automated COI tracking, and structured contractor prequalification reduce administrative burden while strengthening safety...

Book a Service Today